Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was a person of knowledge who in the early 1990s got involved, unfortunately, with personalities like Muhammad al-Misery and his organization called CDLR (an organization practically working to effect Leninist and Marxist type revolutions in Muslim lands). Through this interaction the Shaykh was led to hold erroneous opinions towards Innovators such as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. He proceeded to defend these individuals, not upon knowledge and baseerah or any kind of detailed research, but out of sentiments and out of the affectation he suffered from as a result of being involved with such unsavouries. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) and other scholars blasted the CDLR in very powerful words (we have the audio and will publish separately on this site inshaa'Allaah) and the scholars expressed their disappointment with the likes of Ibn Jibreen getting involved with these people. Unfortunately that connection harmed the Shaykh in that he became blinded to what these people were really upon, for he, in his methodology, was not upon what these takfiri revolutionaries were upon, even if he was deceived by them in his perception of the Innovators such as Qutb and Bannaa. As such, whilst the truth is clear expressed in many of his statements regarding the rulers, the issues of Takfir, the issue pertaining to the Secular Laws that the rulers have been put to trial with, revolting, terrorism and so on, he unfortunately, showed lenience towards these Innovators even if the truth that is found in much of his speech actually convicts these very same people. Due to Shaykh Ibn Jibreen's persistence in defending these people however, Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was powerfully and forcefully refuted, and his contradiction made clear by the likes of Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee who wrote a series of refutations against him, and also expelled him from Ahl us-Sunnah for his continued allegiance to and defence of Jahmite Ash'ari and Sufi Innovators (see this series here and Kharijites such as Usamah Bin Laden (see here).

The Qutbiyyah - (see here, here and here for the Major Scholars corroborating the existence of something known as "the Qutbi Manhaj", proving its not an invention of the "Madkhalis") - attempt to make Takfir in relation to some Muslim countries with their claim that their rulers have abolished the Sharee'ah and instituted another law in its place, and in this they make use of the sayings of numerous scholars that we have detailed elsewhere on this site (see here, here, here, here, by way of example). Whilst it is certainly true that there exist Secular Laws in almost all Muslim lands, in varying degrees, it is rare to find a Muslim ruler, who systematically abolished the entire Sharee'ah and put in its place something else. This is because most of the Secular Laws found in Muslim countries got there through colonialism and imperialism. The only example that can be given is that of Kemal Ataturk who was not a Muslim but a Doenmeh Jew, from the offspring of the followers of Sabbetai Tzevi, a 17th century Jewish Mystic who claimed Messiahship and later accepted Islam out of taqiyyah, in order to protect himself, whilst concealing his Jewish heritage. He was followed in that by a couple hundred families, whose offspring became known as the "Doenmeh". It was these people who later formed the "Young Turk" movement that deposed the Sultan, and from them was Kemal Ataturk who subsequently came to power and did what he did to Turkey.

The point here is that the methodology of the Qutbiyyah is a Leninist-style revolution, which is to remove the current ruler(s), as Sayyid Qutb advocated in "Fi Zilal il-Quran (3/1451)" (see here), and this first requires Takfir. And thus they wish to make Takfir of the situation predominant in many Muslim lands of the presence of Secular Laws, but to effect this, they need to make use of the sayings of the Scholars that speak of a ruler systematically abolishing the entire Sharee'ah, and instituting a completely new law to replace it - and it is hard to find a Muslim ruler who has done this, rather most rulers have come to power in the situation that the Secular Laws already exist. And for this reason, you see that very same Scholars whose words they use on the issue of systematically abolishing the whole Sharee'ah and placing another law in its place actually refute these people in their Takfir and their misguidance (see here as an example), and certainly do not agree with them in their Takfir of the rulers in certain lands, like what they do with the rulers of the Gulf countries. So this proves that the attachment of these people to what the Scholars speak of regarding a ruler who systematically abolishes the entire Sharee'ah and puts another law in its place is an attachment through which they can deceive the people into agreeing with their Takfir of the situation predominant in most Muslim lands of the presence of Secular Laws to varying degrees and for which those rulers were not necessarily responsible for instituting. This is what their Leninist revolutionary manhaj actually depends upon.

There are no scholars with them neither in their Takfir of certain rulers, like those in the Gulf, nor in their revolutionary manhaj. Their attachment to these scholars is a fake one, its an opportunistic one and they are not with the Scholars and neither are the Scholars with them. Their only attachment with Shaykh Ibn Jibreen is because he was vocal in defending some of the Innovators about which he was deceived. Shaykh Ibn Jibreen actually means nothing to them except as an opportunistic tool through which to propagate their evil methodologies. When they see his fatwas that directly clash with their actual methodologies, don't be surprised that amongst them would be found a deluded dog who says in private, in a hushed resentful tone, "Kaafir, murtadd, cementer of the throne of the tyrants - just like the rest!".

Further, these "dogs" - as per the hadeeth, "The Khawaarij are the Dogs of Hellfire", and as they are characterized in the speech of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen himself(see here) - do not have any scholars, the Khawaarij never had scholars amongst them, ever, in history. Ask them to name any major scholar who is actually with them today, upon their actual methodologies, and in their Takfir and calls for khurooj?

It is known that al-kufr al-bawah (manifest, clear kufr) is an open, outward matter, such as when he abolishes the teachings of Islaam, or we see him for example, destroying mosques, or he fights the people of the mosques (i.e. those who frequent them), or he abolishes the [Sharee'ah] law courts, or he abolishes the religious lessons, for example, or we see him burning the copies of the Qur'aan, or that he orders for them to be burnt, and he promotes, assists the books of misguidance, the books of the Christians, and whatever resembles them, and he spreads them and makes reading them to be binding, or we see him erecting those things that are worshipped besides Allaah, such as idols and the likes.

This is considered manifest, clear kufr.

As for the [types of] matters in which ijtihaad can enter into, then we alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers (wullaat) are upon, from that which is called "judgement by the secular laws" (hukman bil-qawaaneen), such as these laws, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit (maslahah) in them, but they did not abolish the legislation (shar') with a complete abolition, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all.

Since Allaah said, "And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are the disbelievers" (al-Maa'idah 5:44), so the likes of these, when they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihaad which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihaad. So for example, their permitting of zinaa [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], when it is with the consent of both parties, and like their abandonment, or the abolition of the hudood, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment for false slander, or the punishment for drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], and announcing the selling of alcohol, and whatever resembles that.

There is no doubt, that this is a great sin, however there could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified (i.e. excused in that). So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have those people who are not Muslim, and that being severe upon them will make them flee. So when they have an angle of approach, then Allaah will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the shar' (legislation), and implemented its teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.

When the above is established from Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, then it means that hearing and obeying those in authority is obligatory upon the khawaarij who are upon the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. The statements of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen in that regard will be presented too. Nothing remains for these Leninist Qutbis except to openly proclaim their tawbah, lament over their disgraces for the past 15 years and submit to the truth.

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan on Removing the Sharee'ah In Its Entirety and Placing Secular Law in Its Place - (see here)

Note: Shaykh Ibn Jibreen got involved with Muhammad al-Mis'ari and his organisation CDLR in the early 90s as a result of which he was led to hold good opinions about these people and the likes of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna. This led him to vocalize his defence of these harakiyyeen. As a result of this, some of the Scholars refuted him and spoke about his errors.

As for his statement above, then it is a stake in the da'wah of the followers of Sayyid Qutb, the people of Takfir, khurooj and their allies, sympathizers and defenders. It couldn't have constituted a greater smiting of their lips, for despite all the clangor and racket they make using the names of certain scholars, none of these scholars are with them in making Takfir of some of the rulers in the Muslim lands. And in reality, these people are not with the Scholars at all, the Scholars are just a means to an end, even the likes of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen in whom they found something they could run with, he is not with these people in their enmity, hatred towards the Scholars and Rulers, and their methodologies of Takfir and khurooj. He was misled into wrongly considering the likes of Qutb and Bannaa as Scholars by the Harakiyyeen, and so he became sympathetic to them and to the likes of Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Awdah. These latter two played a significant role in deceiving the youth about the likes of Sayyid Qutb - only to be abandoned by these same youth who subsequently found solace in the more hardcore Takfiris such as Isaam Barqawi and Mustafa Haleemah, and many of whom declared Safar and Salmaan kafirs for selling out and being treacherous to the (haraki) da'wah, with the latter now sitting with Sufis and Shi'ites and calling for nearness towards them.

This one statement from Shaykh Ibn Jibreen (may Allaah pardon him), has invalidated, destroyed, demolished and ruined their call and has rendered spurious the entire basis of its existence - which is Takfir based upon the situation described in the words of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen above. And as for their goal, then it is to topple the rulers through the manifestos of secular atheist Jews of the late 19th and early 20th century, which came to them through the works of Sayyid Qutb, in particular "Milestones" and "In the Shade of the Qu'ran".